BRITISH ARMY. In ARMIES, _MODERN, a succinct account is given of the relative strength and organization of the chief European armies, with the exception of that of the British empire, reserved for consideration in the present article.
Like other modern armies, the British army originated in the feudal system (q.v.).. When regal power, tempered by a parliament, superseded that system, the people, according to their rank in life, were expected to provide themselves with certain kinds of weapons and defensive armor. The justices of the peace were empowered to see to these military duties of the people. When the nation was either actually engaged in war, or apprehensive of invasion, the sovereign issued commissions to experienced offi cers, authorizing them to draw out and array the fittest men for service in each county, and to march them to the sea-coast, or to any part of the country known to be in most danger. See AIRAYER. It was in the time of Henry VIII. that lord-lieutenants and deputy-lieutenants of counties were first appointed as standing-officers for assembling and mustering the military force. During the earlier years of the Tudors, contracts were made by the king with "captains," who undertook to provide, clothe, and feed so many fighting-men, for a given money-allowance; but the power intrusted to the lord lieutenants gradually changed this system, in relation at least to home-defense. In the reign of Charles I., the important question arose, whether the king of England did or did not possess the right to maintain a military force without the express consent of parliament? and this question was all the more bitterly discussed when the king billeted his soldiers on the people. After the troubles of the civil wars and the commonwealth, Charles II. found himself compelled to agree, on his restoration, to the abandonment of all the army except a kind of body-guard or household brigade of 5000 men, sanctioned by the parliament. In the 13th year of his reign, he succeeded in obtaining a statute, declaratory that " the sole and supreme power, government, command, and disposition of the militia, and of all forces by sea and land, and of all forts and places of strength, is the undoubted right of his majesty; and both or either of the houses of parliament cannot nor ought to pretend to the same." Both Charles II. and James II. found, how ever, to their mortification, that this statute did not in effect give them so much real military command as they had wished and intended—because the commons, by holding the purse, virtually held the power.
It was in the time of William and Mary that the real basis for the modern B. A.
was laid. The declaration of rights (q.v.) settled, in positive terms, "that the raising and keeping of a standing army in time of peace, without consent of parliament, is contrary to law." The first mutiny act (q.v.) was passed in 1689, to last for six months only; but it has been annually renewed ever since, except in three particular years; and it constitutes the warrant on which the whole military system of England is exercised by the sovereign, with the consent of parliament. Since then, with only three interruptions, the ministers of the crown have annually applied to parliament for per mission to raise a military force, and for money to defray the expenses. The sovereign can make war, and can bestow military employments and honors; but the commons, as the representatives of the tax-paying nation, provide a check on the grasping by cour tiers of military privileges. The law on army regulation has been revised, and the B.A. made the subject of special legislation in the army discipline bill passed in 1879.
The great distinction between the B. A. and that of almost every other state in Europe, is that the service is voluntary. The subjects of the crown engage, by free choice, to serve in the army for a definite number of years. In the rare cases where forced service by ballot Is obtained, it is in the militia, not the regular army. See MILI TIA. The British soldier has much hard colonial life to bear, and many long voyages to make; he is, moreover, almost entirely shut out from the chance of being a commis timed officer. As a consequence, the ranks are mostly filled from the more necessitous classes of the community—by those who from want of steady habits, or of education, are the least fitted for industrious pursuits; whereas in France and many other foreign countries, the profession of arms is regarded as an honorable one, of which even the private soldier feels proud. Mr. De Fonblauque, comparing the peace establishments of the chief European armies in 1857, found that of England to be the smallest in ratio to population, but the most costly in relation to its strength. • The English ratio was 1 in 128; the French, 1 in 95; the Prussian, 1 in 80; the Russian, 1 in 72; the Austrian, 1 in 68. An English private soldier costs the country £52 per annum; French, £36; Prussian, £31; Austrian, .4-;18 108.; Russian, ..-e,13 5s. The English cost per man is still higher now than it was in 1857, on account of increased attention being paid to the well-being of the soldier.